Bears game 3: Monday Sep. 27 vs GB on ESPN

[erik316wttn]

erik the packers blow

 

It's your right to say so, my man.

[imb]

 

I'm just making the same argument you guys were. Sorry you can't handle it turned back around on you.

 

No you aren't.

 

 

Just saying, keep dreaming. Your offensive line held Peppers all night and didnt get called for half of them. Packers lost plain and simple. The penalties are nothing new to the "dumbest team in the league". After awhile you cant say you gave the game away when penalties have become a trademark of your team.

 

Yes. I am.

 

All I'm saying is that after a comment like this there had better not be complaining about how the Bears "should have won" if there is a game they lose where there were a bunch of missed tackles.

 

Again, what the hell are you talking about? Do you ever expect a Bears fan to come onto a forum heavily populated by Packers fans minutes after a Bears loss and immediately say "we gave you the game because of missed tackles. You got a gift win."? If you do, you are unbelievably insane.

 

I'm on a forum full of Cubs fans who have various other allegiances when it comes to other sports. And if that hypothetical Bears loss did happen, you bet there'd be a ton of discussion here and on other Bears forums about it, and someone would say "We lost because of the missed tackles." It's something fans do. How many times as fans of the Cubs have we said "We should have won, but lost because of ______?" Yes, I don't go onto boards of other teams and say that, but I figured seeing as I don't really visit any football boards I'd discuss the game here.

 

Did you miss the part where I said I knew I was in the minority? I completely get that.

 

I expect Bears fans to do lots of things. Crack, namely. It would explain a lot about certain unnamed posers.

 

Goodnight, NSBB!

 

saying "we lost because of missed tackles" in a game where a team missed a lot of tackles and lost is a lot different than saying "WE GIFTED YOU A WIN" when you committed 150 penalties because you're not athletic enough to keep up with the other team's players

 

the fact that you can grasp this is ... not surprising

[WrigleyField 22]

The Packers did outplay the Bears tonight, primarily by cheating.

[Keener98]

Bears fans do crack? Thats better than the Meth in Wisconsin right?

[17 Seconds]

and they dont even get the good meth

[bukie]

Bears fans do crack? Thats better than the Meth in Wisconsin right?

I thought Packers fans did sausages and cheeses.

[erik316wttn]

 

saying "we lost because of missed tackles" in a game where a team missed a lot of tackles and lost is a lot different than saying "WE GIFTED YOU A WIN" when you committed 150 penalties because you're not athletic enough to keep up with the other team's players

 

the fact that you can grasp this is ... not surprising

 

Is saying "we lost because of missed tackles" in a game where a team missed a lot of tackles and lost the same as saying "we lost because we had a lot of penalties"? Because I said that, too.

 

We lost because of _____ = They won because we did _____

 

the fact that you cannot grasp THIS is.... also not surprising.

 

I await your post in which you choose to personally attack me instead of arguing the facts. I'll read it in the morning.

Edited September 28, 2010 by erik316wttn

[17 Seconds]

the packers lost because they blow

[imb]

 

saying "we lost because of missed tackles" in a game where a team missed a lot of tackles and lost is a lot different than saying "WE GIFTED YOU A WIN" when you committed 150 penalties because you're not athletic enough to keep up with the other team's players

 

the fact that you can grasp this is ... not surprising

 

Is saying "we lost because of missed tackles" in a game where a team missed a lot of tackles and lost the same as saying "we lost because we had a lot of penalties"? Because I said that, too.

 

We lost because of _____ = They won because we did _____

 

the fact that you cannot grasp THIS is.... also not surprising.

 

I await your post in which you choose to personally attack me instead of arguing the facts. I'll read it in the morning.

 

i can do them both at the same time

[chuckywang]

The Packers did outplay the Bears tonight, primarily by cheating.

 

Cheating really? I guess when a basketball player fouls at the end of the game on purpose to stop the clock, that's cheating too right?

[imb]

the packers lost because they blow

 

if a team loses because they blow and you say that they lost because they blow i hope you never complain about them losing because they blow because that's the something something is dinner ready

[UMFan83]

I expect Bears fans to do lots of things. Crack, namely.

 

Look, we can't be held responsible for what the White Sox segment of Bears fans does for fun.

[chuckywang]

the packers lost because they blow

 

Mind like a steel trap. You can't argue with this kind of infallible logic.

[Outshined_One]

Alright, enough with the fat jokes. Make fun of his moronic arguments.

[WrigleyField 22]

The Packers did outplay the Bears tonight, primarily by cheating.

 

Cheating really? I guess when a basketball player fouls at the end of the game on purpose to stop the clock, that's cheating too right?

"Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others,[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. "

 

Yea, I think that holding, pass interference, and roughing the passer all fit under there.

 

Fouling in basketball is cheating too. The fact that its done because the penalty may not outweigh the reward is irrelevant.

 

Anyways, the point I was making was that your line looked pretty good for instance (compared to the Bears), but due in large part to the holding of Peppers that kept happening. So in order for that strategy to be successful will almost always rely on not getting caught. If you hadn't held him at certain points, or interfered with receivers at certain points, they may have not looked as good as they did.

[chuckywang]

The Packers did outplay the Bears tonight, primarily by cheating.

 

Cheating really? I guess when a basketball player fouls at the end of the game on purpose to stop the clock, that's cheating too right?

"Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others,[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. "

 

Yea, I think that holding, pass interference, and roughing the passer all fit under there.

 

Fouling in basketball is cheating too. The fact that its done because the penalty may not outweigh the reward is irrelevant.

 

Anyways, the point I was making was that your line looked pretty good for instance (compared to the Bears), but due in large part to the holding of Peppers that kept happening. So in order for that strategy to be successful will almost always rely on not getting caught. If you hadn't held him at certain points, or interfered with receivers at certain points, they may have not looked as good as they did.

 

And the Packers got called for those penalties in spades. And the Packers still almost won. And I don't know what you mean that the Packers wouldn't have looked so good since the Bears got over 150 free yards in penalties. Are you saying the Packers got away with some penalties as well? I'd like to see some examples.

Edited September 28, 2010 by chuckywang

[Omar]

somebody pass the crack

[Keener98]

The Packers did outplay the Bears tonight, primarily by cheating.

 

Cheating really? I guess when a basketball player fouls at the end of the game on purpose to stop the clock, that's cheating too right?

"Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others,[1] Cheating implies the breaking of rules. "

 

Yea, I think that holding, pass interference, and roughing the passer all fit under there.

 

Fouling in basketball is cheating too. The fact that its done because the penalty may not outweigh the reward is irrelevant.

 

Anyways, the point I was making was that your line looked pretty good for instance (compared to the Bears), but due in large part to the holding of Peppers that kept happening. So in order for that strategy to be successful will almost always rely on not getting caught. If you hadn't held him at certain points, or interfered with receivers at certain points, they may have not looked as good as they did.

 

And the Packers got called for those penalties in spades. And the Packers still almost won. And I don't know what you mean that the Packers wouldn't have looked so good since the Bears got over 150 free yards in penalties. Are you saying the Packers got away with some penalties as well? I'd like to see some examples.

 

Just re watch the game and watch nothing but Peppers. You will see plenty of examples. They were holding him every pass play and only got called for 2. And as for the 150 free yards in penalties, you Packer fans still haven't said anything about the penalty on Melton that was total BS and led to a Packer TD.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm saying if you didn't hold Peppers, whether it was called or not, Rogers would be a pancake on the ground.

 

Now the outcome was roughly the same. The Packers lost yards. But from a general viewer perception it feels like the Packers lost a touchdown because of holding (one specific example) but really the penalty they committed led directly to their ability to make the play. Same with two plays where it feels like the Packers lost two interceptions, when in reality, the penalties led to those would be interceptions. They didn't lose anything or give anything away.

 

Now the penalty where your DB tried to flip Forte was an example of a penalty that was a "giveaway". Its like the player who blocks a guy in the back on a punt return, but he is 20 yards from the play. Those are discipline issues that can be corrected. Constantly holding or interfering is just being over matched. Throw in a lot of those offside or illegal formation penalties as well, since those lineman were trying to get any advantage they could.

Edited September 28, 2010 by WrigleyField 22

[Omar]

Can someone link me to a replay of the last play with all the laterals?

[chuckywang]

Roughing the Passer: Flagrantly running into or hitting the quarterback after the ball has been released. Can also be called when a defender hits the quarterback in the head.

 

Melton drove Rodgers two yards backwards and hard into the ground with that hit. It's not called all the time, but I don't have any guilt over that penalty.

[ELCABALLO45]

Peppers got held quite a bit tonight and was held on that TD to Finley. Clay Matthews was held pretty much the whole night as well. And Martin was mugged and grabbed on Hester's punt return TD.

 

No matter how much a team outplays the other team, you never deserve to win a game with 18 penalties.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Normally I don't jump into pissing matches.

 

I'm not sure what possessed me to read all the threads after Gould's game-winning field goal, but I did.

 

And I gotta say; Erik, you really suck at this arguing thing.

[Keener98]

Roughing the Passer: Flagrantly running into or hitting the quarterback after the ball has been released. Can also be called when a defender hits the quarterback in the head.

 

Melton drove Rodgers two yards backwards and hard into the ground with that hit. It's not called all the time, but I don't have any guilt over that penalty.

They called roughing the passer for hitting Rodgers in the head not for driving him in the ground. It was a BS call and an extremely blatant one at that.

[JonJayCutler]

I'm not getting what the point here is supposed to be. Yes, the Packers' penalties helped the Bears win, but they were all warranted penalties. Bears had a couple of big penalties too, including the Melton late-hit on Rodgers on the TD-drive as people have already pointed out.

 

The Packers had chances to pick Cutler in the 2nd half but either dropped the ball, roughed the passer, or committed pass interference. They probably moved the ball better than the Bears, but you can't really say they played a better game, as limiting penalties is a big part of playing a "good game". Make sense?